The GeoVision describes a future in which technological improvements, reduced costs, decreased regulatory burdens, and other factors lead to a dramatic increase of geothermal resources for electricity generation and for directly heating and cooling buildings. If the GeoVision is achieved it will benefit various stakeholders within the geothermal electricity and geothermal heat pump (GHP) sectors. In this report, we evaluate whether achieving the GeoVision will provide substantial benefits to the country beyond the direct benefits to the geothermal industry. We perform this evaluation by quantifying a set of impacts of achieving the GeoVision. In the GeoVision, the expanded use of geothermal power leads to the development of a new industrial ecosystem, a cleaner electricity system, and reduced in-building fuel combustion. Thus, we estimate the gross job creation, water usage benefits, air quality and public health benefits, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission benefits created by realization of the GeoVision. This set of benefits covers many, but not all, of the important impacts created by this GeoVision.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed as the “gold standard” of evaluation. However, analysis of the effect of energy pricing has largely been conducted through quasi-experimental methods. Using a rare set of large-scale randomized field experiments of time-based electricity pricing, we compare the estimates obtained from commonly used non-experimental methods against RCT estimates. We demonstrate empirical evidence in favor of four stylized facts that highlight the importance of understanding two important sources of bias in this context: selection bias and spillover effects. First, difference-in-difference and propensity score methods tend to underestimate the true average treatment effect. Second, regression discontinuity methods tend to overestimate the effect. Third, selection biases in quasi-experimental methods tend to be more pronounced in opt-in treatments relative to opt-out treatments. Fourth, the three-in-five day baseline with an additive adjustment recomm ended by KEMA (2011) tends to underestimate the impact of the intervention, a pattern we attribute to intertemporal spillover effects.

The Guide to Purchasing Green Power is intended for organizations that are considering the merits of buying green power as well as those that have decided to buy it and want help doing so. The Guide was written for a broad audience, including businesses, government agencies, universities, and all organizations wanting to diversify their energy supply and to reduce the environmental impact of their electricity use. The Guide provides an overview of green power markets and describes the necessary steps to buying green power. This section summarizes the Guide to help readers find the information they need.

"Green" buildings are typically designed to minimize environmental impacts in multiple areas (e.g., energy, water, materials), and to maximize the health and quality of life of building occupants. Green buildings can provide a niche market for renewable energy technologies for several reasons. First, designers of green buildings often wish to include renewable energy systems due to their associated environmental benefits and visibility. Green buildings also tend to be new buildings, where renewable energy technologies are often most cost-effective to install. Due to their energy efficiency and other features, green buildings may also provide opportunities to leverage additional funds – e.g., utility or state energy efficiency funds. Last, green buildings tend to receive a relatively high degree of public attention, increasing the exposure of any renewable energy systems they incorporate. This case study examines the efforts of several state renewable energy funds to promote renewable energy use in green buildings. These efforts fall into two categories: targeted funding for renewable energy systems used specifically on green (or at least energy-efficient) buildings, and general green building promotion. The states that are covered include Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Oregon, Illinois, and Ohio. Innovative Features State clean energy funds have explored a variety of methods to promote the use of renewable energy technologies on green buildings, including:

Green power marketing—the business of selling electricity products or services based in part on their environmental values—is still in an early stage of development. This Topical Issues Brief presents a summary of early results with green power marketing under retail competition, covering both fully competitive markets and relevant direct access pilot programs. The brief provides an overview of green products that are or were offered, and discusses consumers' interest in these products. Critical issues that will impact the availability and success of green power products under retail competition are highlighted. Some of the key observations and conclusions of the work include:

Experience from pilot programs in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Oregon—while insightful in many respects—should not be broadly generalized.

Green power markets have developed in all four states currently open to full competition.

The availability and success of green power products will hinge on several factors, including the regulatory rules and public policies established at the onset of restructuring

Environmental disclosure requirements and certification programs may also play an important role in the success of green power markets.

Evidence to date shows that green products have had some success in markets newly opened to competition.

Restructuring of the electric and gas utility industries is causing fundamental changes in the design and implementation of energy-efficiency programs. Until recently, energy efficiency programs were an essential element of least-cost planning for electric and gas utilities. Now many policymakers are re-examining the continuing need for, purposes served by, and manner of delivering energy-efficiency programs in light of utility restructuring policies across the Northeast and the nation. In parts of the country where support for utility energy-efficiency programs has been strong for years (such as the Northeast, Northwest, California, and Wisconsin), continuing recognition of the important public benefits provided by these programs, in particular the reduction of negative environmental consequences of electricity generation, has inspired both regulatory and legislative efforts to preserve ratepayer funding for them. These efforts also generally recognize that the former utility resource acquisition orientation of these programs has given way to a broader societal perspective that emphasizes the overall economic and environmental benefits provided by energy-efficiency programs.

An emerging focus for energy-efficiency programs in a restructured electricity industry is market transformation. Much attention is now being devoted to implementing energy-efficiency programs that have been explicitly designed to effect lasting beneficial changes in markets. Successful market transformation programs hold the promise of improving the functioning of markets to the point where publicly funded programs are no longer needed. To facilitate regional market transformation efforts, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc. (NEEP), a nonprofit regional organization, was founded in 1996 to increase and coordinate energy-efficiency efforts in New England, New York, and the Mid-Atlantic region.

Retail electricity competition will allow customers to select their own power suppliers and some customers will make purchase decisions based, in part, on their concern for the environment. Green power marketing targets these customers under the assumption that they will pay a premium for "green" energy products such as renewable power generation. But renewable energy is not a traditional product because it supplies public goods; for example, a customer supporting renewable energy is unable to capture the environmental benefits that her investment provides to non-participating customers. As with all public goods, there is a risk that few customers will purchase "green" power and that many will instead "free ride" on others' participation. By free riding, an individual is able to enjoy the benefits of the public good while avoiding payment. This report reviews current green power marketing activities in the electric industry, introduces the extensive academic literature on public goods, free riders, and collective action problems, and explores in detail the implications of this literature for the green marketing of renewable energy. Specifically, we highlight the implications of the public goods literature for green power product design and marketing communications strategies. We emphasize four mechanisms that marketers can use to increase customer demand for renewable energy. Though the public goods literature can also contribute insights into the potential rationale for renewable energy policies, we leave most of these implications for future work (see Appendix A for a possible research agenda).